Jaguars release new uniforms: best and worst new designs in the NFL (+video)

The Jacksonville Jaguars and three other teams have released new uniform designs in the past year – with mixed results. Here are the league's four new uniforms, subjectively ranked from worst to best. 

2. Jacksonville Jaguars

If you're going to have uniform overhaul, really have a uniform overhaul, the Jaguars said. The First Coast cats get maximum points for effort and risk-taking, but the new uniforms could use a bit of editing.  

First, the good: The new logo, arguably the most important element, is a major improvement over the old one: sleeker, more menacing, and better resembling an actual jaguar. The new jerseys incorporate a small “Jags” patch on the front, which the creators say is a tribute to the Jacksonville area’s large military presence. The white home jerseys look sharp; I like that they salvaged at least some of the Jags’ formerly signature teal in the numbering (and the Jag mascot’s teal tongue).

The bad: The sleeves on all three jerseys (home white, away black, and the teal alternate) are different colors than the rest of the jersey – so the white jerseys have black sleeves, the black have teal sleeves, and the teal have black sleeves. The effect is blocky and a little reminiscent of scuba gear, especially with the snug fit in that color palate.

The real problem, though, is the helmets. The new Jags headgear is two-toned: a black in the front that fades to gold in the back. According to the Jags organization, they are supposed to represent a jaguar coming out of the shadows and into the jungle to hunt. It’s daring, but it’s also ugly. There’s a slight possibility the helmets will look cool fading from black to gold in the sunlight during actual play, but I’d have to see it. 

3 of 4

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.